• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

LordRaptor
Member
(10-09-2017, 08:46 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Forward

You argue from a postion of acute sociopathy.

There is no discourse to be had with such as you.

...

"Player flow" = psychology.
"Game feel" = psychology
"Risk vs reward" = psychology
"User Experience" = psychology
"Aesthetic appeal" = psychology
"Quality of life fixes" = psychology
"Feedback loops" = psychology
"Breadcrumb trails" = psychology

It is not the 1950s.
Most professionals in any form of design capacity use well known psychological studies as the bread and butter of their toolset as a designer, because understanding things like user expectations and user frustrations helps make to better products.

That doesn't make them villains. That doesn't make them sociopaths.

Holy fucking shit, dude.
Ponn
Banned
(10-09-2017, 09:13 PM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

...

"Player flow" = psychology.
"Game feel" = psychology
"Risk vs reward" = psychology
"User Experience" = psychology
"Aesthetic appeal" = psychology
"Quality of life fixes" = psychology
"Feedback loops" = psychology
"Breadcrumb trails" = psychology

It is not the 1950s.
Most professionals in any form of design capacity use well known psychological studies as the bread and butter of their toolset as a designer, because understanding things like user expectations and user frustrations helps make to better products.

That doesn't make them villains. That doesn't make them sociopaths.

Holy fucking shit, dude.

We often forget just because quite a few of us GAFfers are adults the game industry is still targeting kids and teens. Gambling is outlawed in many states and areas for a reason for ADULTS. And here you have the game industry using those predatory tactics on a platform targeting KIDS. Where exactly do you draw the line on morals and ethics?
RomanceDawn
Member
(10-09-2017, 09:39 PM)
RomanceDawn's Avatar
Because of the context in which the term Loot Box is used I think I understand. Still though can someone tell me exactly what a loot box is?

Is it like treasure chest that comes with random gear/upgrades/money? And when it's paid DLC are people buying random loot boxes like this?
LordRaptor
Member
(10-09-2017, 09:40 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Ponn

We often forget just because quite a few of us GAFfers are adults the game industry is still targeting kids and teens. Gambling is outlawed in many states and areas for a reason for ADULTS. And here you have the game industry using those predatory tactics on a platform targeting KIDS. Where exactly do you draw the line on morals and ethics?

Lootboxes aren't gambling. They are blind purchases.

GAFs moral outrage isn't about actual abuses - like telling kids they need smurfberries to continue and in tiny smallprint the definition of smurfberries being a real world only currency that can be silently bought using the credit card attached to the device in question that the device cannot be used without.

You shouldn't be letting kids have free reign of a device without knowing what they're doing, and they shouldn't have unfettered access to your credit cards.

The idea that anyone using "PSYCHOLOGY!" is a "villain" or a "sociopath" is outright unhinged
Ponn
Banned
(10-10-2017, 09:43 AM)

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Lootboxes aren't gambling. They are blind purchases.

GAFs moral outrage isn't about actual abuses - like telling kids they need smurfberries to continue and in tiny smallprint the definition of smurfberries being a real world only currency that can be silently bought using the credit card attached to the device in question that the device cannot be used without.

You shouldn't be letting kids have free reign of a device without knowing what they're doing, and they shouldn't have unfettered access to your credit cards.

The idea that anyone using "PSYCHOLOGY!" is a "villain" or a "sociopath" is outright unhinged

Well then we disagree fundamentally on the definition of sociopath. Too me a sociopath is someone that can reason to themselves the exploitation, manipulation and general harming of someone else by themselves or others, especially kids, can be justified in asanine ways.
Bluehound
Junior Member
(10-10-2017, 10:21 AM)
Bluehound's Avatar
I don't think loot boxes are gambling. Gambling usually suggests there is a risk for either reward or you get absolutely nothing. In this case loot boxes are like those capsule machines you see where you can get a random item/food every time you put coins in. So you get a reward although it might not be the one you were looking for.

However in case of videogames, while fundamentals are same, it is still different. I bet it is almost guaranteed in this game developers make the base game content much more grindy than it would be in regular conditions without loot boxes. Why? Because there wouldn't be any use for these loot boxes in the first place then. I can only speculate because who would freely admit doing such thing. Basic marketing rule is to make a new product/service attractive and tempting to customer. It is to make the customer think the product is useful or necessary for him/her.

If items are already in-game and can be gotten using other methods than loot boxes, it further proves that loot boxes-feature is a method for exploiting customer's buying habits by giving him/her an illusion that it is easier while in reality it isn't so because it keeps draining real money. It is not like this system is new; MapleStory's Gachapon "capsule machine" has been done this for long long time.

Gambling? No. Exploitative and unnecessary? Yes.
hotcyder
Member
(10-10-2017, 10:27 AM)
hotcyder's Avatar
The games industry can't sustain 60$ games anymore - at least not without supplemental income like Loot Boxes.

Outside of GAF, I think people would rather a system like this in place to keep costs down versus paying 100$ for a game up front.
le.phat
Member
(10-10-2017, 10:31 AM)
le.phat's Avatar

Originally Posted by hotcyder

The games industry can't sustain 60$ games anymore - at least not without supplemental income like Loot Boxes.

Outside of GAF, I think people would rather a system like this in place to keep costs down versus paying 100$ for a game up front.

What are you basing this on? The games industry is the biggest media industry in the world. Please explain how you came to the conclusion that $60 base games are unsustainable.
fanboi
Banned
(10-10-2017, 10:44 AM)
fanboi's Avatar
I like loot boxes if it is cosmetic stuff only.

If it keep companies afloat and make them money in an industry that I love, it is fine for me.

It wasnít that long ago where we had a lot of studios closing down etc, so if loot boxes can keep more studies alive I am all for it.
Chairmanchuck
Member
(10-10-2017, 10:48 AM)
Chairmanchuck's Avatar

Originally Posted by hotcyder

The games industry can't sustain 60$ games anymore - at least not without supplemental income like Loot Boxes.

Outside of GAF, I think people would rather a system like this in place to keep costs down versus paying 100$ for a game up front.

Most games already have a supplemental income called MTs and Seasonpasses or Mappacks.
Look at CoD. They have a seasonpass, map-packs AND lootboxes.

Originally Posted by fanboi

I like loot boxes if it is cosmetic stuff only.

If it keep companies afloat and make them money in an industry that I love, it is fine for me.

It wasn’t that long ago where we had a lot of studios closing down etc, so if loot boxes can keep more studies alive I am all for it.

The new Jimquisition video is actually quite nice about that. Its the already HUGE publishers using lootboxes besides MTs and seasonpasses.
No smaller studios are using them.

It is EA, WB, Activision etc. not the Stardew Valley devs, NISA, Atlus etc.
jipewithin
Member
(10-10-2017, 10:56 AM)
jipewithin's Avatar
Have never bought a single season pass, and I will not buy a game which has these types of P2W lootboxes. These are EA/Ubisoft trash anyway so not really losing anything. It's fine if game is free to play or if they are purely cosmetic. Better if it's both, like in Dota 2.

Season pass / expansion DLC:s are fine if done right, like Witcher 3, Bloodborne, Nioh, FFXV and most likely Horizon: Zero Dawn. Maybe I will buy Nioh pass at some point, bought Bloodborne expansion and will double dip FFXV when PC version comes (has season pass already).

I guess Destiny 2 will be my first actual season pass purchase, we'll see.
TheYanger
Member
(10-10-2017, 12:47 PM)
TheYanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chairmanchuck

Most games already have a supplemental income called MTs and Seasonpasses or Mappacks.
Look at CoD. They have a seasonpass, map-packs AND lootboxes.



The new Jimquisition video is actually quite nice about that. Its the already HUGE publishers using lootboxes besides MTs and seasonpasses.
No smaller studios are using them.

It is EA, WB, Activision etc. not the Stardew Valley devs, NISA, Atlus etc.

Right, because the giant publishers are the ones that have to make back insane returns on investment. A 15 person indy dev selling a game for 20 bucks is very different from EA selling a game that 300 people worked on for 60. I'm not saying the PUBLISHERS are in danger of going out of business without this stuff necessarily, but certainly the developers are in danger of being let go if margins falter.

Like, let's look at an example. Do you really think Stardew Valley has as 1/3 many man-hours put into its creation as Overwatch? A 20 dollar game vs a 60 dollar (or 40 dollar on pc if you want) game. There is NO WAY Overwatch didn't cost over 3 times as much to make though. And that's just the up front development cost, it's also a game with a team that still makes content, they've got the Movie studio at Blizzard making insane CGI trailers, they've got servers and the maintainence with that, etc. So, if you're saying Stardew Valley is a smaller dev so they should be trying to cash in instead of larger publishers...I think you're not putting much thought into the numbers to do that.

By no means am I defending most loot box solutions, I think OVerwatch's is great so that's why I use that example (and most people seem to think it's at least relatively fair), but these giant games are not cheap to develop, not cheap to maintain. It's up to us as consumers to draw our own lines in the sand and vote with our wallets, I know some people think that means no loot boxes whatsoever, but just know that if your line is '60 dollars and never a cent more' for a game, you're being subsidized by everyone else, because that model is unsustainable for AAA games.
shintoki
sparkle this bitch
(10-10-2017, 12:52 PM)
shintoki's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chairmanchuck

Most games already have a supplemental income called MTs and Seasonpasses or Mappacks.
Look at CoD. They have a seasonpass, map-packs AND lootboxes.



The new Jimquisition video is actually quite nice about that. Its the already HUGE publishers using lootboxes besides MTs and seasonpasses.
No smaller studios are using them.

It is EA, WB, Activision etc. not the Stardew Valley devs, NISA, Atlus etc.

We haven't had an increase in the average cost of a game for over a decade now. Alongside game prices dropping much quicker than ever before. While EA, Activision, etc has to invest far more than before for something like Battlefront.

Rather than charging more upfront, they've been picking it up on the tail end with things like lootcrates, DLC, etc.
dezzy8
Member
(10-10-2017, 12:55 PM)
dezzy8's Avatar

Originally Posted by hotcyder

The games industry can't sustain 60$ games anymore - at least not without supplemental income like Loot Boxes.

Outside of GAF, I think people would rather a system like this in place to keep costs down versus paying 100$ for a game up front.

Doubt it. We are still getting 60 dollar games without MTs. It's the greedy publishers that want to suck you dry. But you can't even be mad at them when people are okay with it.
TheYanger
Member
(10-10-2017, 12:59 PM)
TheYanger's Avatar

Originally Posted by shintoki

We haven't had an increase in the average cost of a game for over a decade now. Alongside game prices dropping much quicker than ever before. While EA, Activision, etc has to invest far more than before for something like Battlefront.

Rather than charging more upfront, they've been picking it up on the tail end with things like lootcrates, DLC, etc.

I mean, even thinking back to like the NES and such, yeah manufacturing was a higher percentage of the cost back then, but when games were 40-50 bucks new back then, not only are we dealing with 25-30 years of inflation, with only a 10 dollar increase in the average game. The games back then were made with AAA dev teams that were SMALLER than many indy dev studios now. Super Mario World has like 18 people listed in the credits, for example.

Gaming on a surface level is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment out there, it used to be MUCH more expensive.

Originally Posted by dezzy8

Doubt it. We are still getting 60 dollar games without MTs. It's the greedy publishers that want to suck you dry. But you can't even be mad at them when people are okay with it.

You're right.
This (Yes, this video is 30 minutes long, you get the idea).

Is incredibly comaparable to
This

The former is why 60 dollar AAA games should not be a thing at all, the fact that they still can release them is a miracle, and it's BECAUSE of the other stuff that you claim is sucking people dry. Even though you can totally just buy that game for 60 dollars, play it, and opt not to spend more. Rail against the games that deceptively almost FORCE you to spend more, please (I certainly do), but just because something has loot boxes you don't need or a season pass, does not make it 'sucking you dry'
witchedwiz
Member
(10-10-2017, 01:05 PM)
witchedwiz's Avatar

Originally Posted by Plumpbiscuit

That was the argument that was said to me in response to the whole Shadow of War/NBA/Forza/Battlefront controversy with loot boxes. To cut a long, long argument short: I am against loot boxes in paid-for AAA games, and in fact the only one who was in the group conversation, and everyone else were okay with loot boxes. However, a collective agreement by them concluded that loot boxes are good and that they are fine with it because "life isn't fair" and that they PREFER people to buy P2W loot boxes for their advantage because "it's more satisfying to kill them knowing they have an advantage over me".

Am I out of touch here or is this it? Are [P2W] loot boxes in $60 AAA games here to stay now? When people are saying to me they LIKE loot boxes like this, and I bring up how they could have been free cheat codes or if tournaments and real life events like a football match introduced unfair elements, how that fairs against their argument, they call me out for being ridiculous. For instance, I said, if life isn't fair then would they be okay if goalkeepers paid referees to shorten their goal length as this is P2W and it would make them satisfied having scored a goal in a net that is shorter than their own one. I also said what if tournaments with cash prizes allowed its participants to buy loot boxes over other players for an instant advantage, and at that point, I was thrown with insults and being called ridiculous etc and some of them left.

Is this what the games industry is now? It seems like loot boxes are here for fucking good.

man, i'll cut it short.. I usually don't go for white or black opinion, I always give some grey leeway... when someone is "advocating" loot crates, they are usually wrong, plain and simple.. but let's make some distinction based on context:

1) look-only loot crates are fine in a COMPLETELY free game..
they are stupid in any non-free game, but an sort of stupidity that we've come to "accept" (this is aesthetic DLCs.. it all went downhill from oblivion horse armor... once upon a time alternate costume in a fighting game were "in game unlockable"... now? welllllllllllllll)
2) gameplay altering loot crates are BAD in a free game, but a necessary evil to make the game sustainable, still a questionable choice...
they are TOTALLY out of place in a non-free game, let alone a FULL PRICED game...

my two cents.. feel free to disagree, but my mind is damn set on this opinion :)
dose
Member
(10-10-2017, 02:18 PM)
dose's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Lootboxes aren't gambling. They are blind purchases.

Originally Posted by Bluehound

I don't think loot boxes are gambling. Gambling usually suggests there is a risk for either reward or you get absolutely nothing.

Incorrect. There is a risk for reward but gambling doesn't mean you will get absolutely nothing if you 'lose'.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gambling?s=t

Gamble

verb (used without object), gambled, gambling.
1.
to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2.
to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance:
to gamble on a toss of the dice.
verb (used with object), gambled, gambling.
3.
to lose or squander by betting (usually followed by away):
He gambled all his hard-earned money away in one night.
4.
to wager or risk (money or something else of value):
to gamble one's freedom.
5.
to take a chance on; venture; risk:
I'm gambling that our new store will be a success.
noun
6.
any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty.
7.
a venture in a game of chance for stakes, especially for high stakes.

vin-buc
Member
(10-10-2017, 02:43 PM)
vin-buc's Avatar
Iíve been avoiding all these loot box threads because honestly itís very sickening to me. Why do we need gambling boxes? Sell me the skin/ornament/camo/shader I want for a price and iíll buy it if I want it/like it. I donít want to spend money to TRY and get it. I just donít understand ďif itís cosmetic itís okĒ - no it isnít. Sell your goods as a common marketplace would.

COD used to sell weapon camos for like 1.99 (if I remember correctly). We used to complain about that but at least it was honest - you want it pay the price and itís yours. You get what youíre paying for - and you determine the value. Now itís you want it roll the dice and try to get it for the same asking price.

I canít stomach this. I hope that these games are cordoned off in the stores with only adults able to buy it with notice of In App Gambling Purchases.
CrashPrime
(10-10-2017, 03:34 PM)
CrashPrime's Avatar

Originally Posted by JeffGrubb

Games went from $50 to $60 with the Xbox 360 in 2005. $60 in 2005 is worth $76 today. So games have essentially seen a significant price cut and publishers have eaten that. On top of that, games are more expensive to make today than they were in 2005. So game creators are feeling it on both sides. This is why they try to drive up the average value of each player by introducing collector's editions, season passes, and loot boxes -- $60 isn't enough for games.

Games were priced with even greater variance a decade previous to that $50 "standard" price. We are talking $69.99 being a very common price for premium SNES titles when the console itself sold for $130. More than half the price of the console itself.

That is in the neighborhood of $110 a game!

Granted games often times got cut down to $25 fairly quickly after release and that is something that seems to happen less in today's market of games.

I don't think we could name a game with more staff and a higher budget than any AAA title made today for $59.99 vs. any SNES game ever made.

That said, I do think the industry could use a price hike to offset some of these other practices that feel scummy like single player loot boxes. I get why it has to be done to try to make money, but I also would like to just see the initial price be higher.

That said also, I mean... I live in fantasy land where I often get games for $48 new and additionally a $10 gift certificate on-top on Day 1. $25 in 1996 money. Thanks retailers (aka Best Buy).
Hero
Member
(10-10-2017, 06:29 PM)
Hero's Avatar
A price hike to MSRP (say to something like 69.99) isn't going to suddenly make developers/publishers remove loot crates from games. They've had a taste of wealth and it's here to stay, at least until something better comes along.
Eidan
Member
(10-10-2017, 06:37 PM)
Eidan's Avatar
I'm annoyed at the narrative that loot boxes are okay with cosmetics. I'm old enough to remember when changing a character's costume and look were free perks that you got for playing the game. Then they became paid DLC. Now they're becoming items you get piece meal through a loot crate where you hope to someday complete the set. It's fucking ridiculous.
mckmas8808
Sony is POO
(10-11-2017, 02:32 PM)
mckmas8808's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rain City Gamer

having loot boxes isn't the issue. Just like having Microtransactions isn't an issue.
the issue is how they are implemented. If pubs/devs keep it to cosmetic stuff they are in the clear. When they start invading the balance of the gameplay experience that is where it becomes a problem.

This should be how everyone feels.
Trogdor1123
Member
(10-11-2017, 03:36 PM)

Originally Posted by Linkark07

I fail to understand how people can defend loot boxes in single player games.

Sadly, if this proves to be successful, expect them to continue appearing in single player AAA games.

Single player is the only place I can defend loot boxes. Mp is pay to win otherwise and that's not cool.
Polioliolio
Member
(10-11-2017, 03:38 PM)
Polioliolio's Avatar
Loot boxes aren't very old. It's insane to see people talking about them as if they must exist, and have been and important staple of game design.

It's a predatory tactic that has caught on as publishers realize how quickly they can make free money. They don't 'need' it, but if there's money to be made, you can bet your ass they aren't going to let that go.


Wonder how many of these loot box excusers spend their lives also supporting/justifying a Trump presidency, because it's the same kind of crazy.


Edit:

Originally Posted by Eidan

I'm annoyed at the narrative that loot boxes are okay with cosmetics. I'm old enough to remember when changing a character's costume and look were free perks that you got for playing the game. Then they became paid DLC. Now they're becoming items you get piece meal through a loot crate where you hope to someday complete the set. It's fucking ridiculous.

Me too brother. It's like because people seem to agree that cosmetics aren't that big of a deal or aren't their favorite aspect of a game, it's okay to do this sneaky shit to it for people who care. The fuck? Remember Dead or Alive 1 and 2, and just how many costumes are included for each character? It's nuts. They could have kept it at a single costume and sold a capable game, but they added more, a hell of a lot more because giving you more was what helped sell the game or influenced you to purchase their future games.

You didn't see shit like today's evil practices because it wasn't possible. If it was, you can be certain this crap would have come a lot sooner.
LordRaptor
Member
(10-11-2017, 03:40 PM)
LordRaptor's Avatar

Originally Posted by Polioliolio

Wonder how many of these loot box excusers spend their lives also supporting a Trump presidency, because it's the same kind of crazy.

Cool, I'm a Trump supporter AND an "acute sociopath" now.

Stay winning with your non-hysterical arguments internet mob.
Polioliolio
Member
(10-11-2017, 03:56 PM)
Polioliolio's Avatar

Originally Posted by LordRaptor

Cool, I'm a Trump supporter AND an "acute sociopath" now.

Stay winning with your non-hysterical arguments internet mob.

It's consumer abuse plain and simple. If it appears relatively harmless to you, that doesn't excuse it from being the shitty morally corrupt exploitation that it is.

People were coming up with excuses for horse armor all those years ago and look where we are now. Without the collective blowback that is finally swelling against this shit, these things would only continue to get worse and worse. Yesterday's horse armor is today's loot boxes. What's tomorrow's loot box? I shudder to imagine.

Thread Tools